United States: Court Strikes Down Work Requirements In Arkansas And Kentucky

Last Updated: April 12 2019
Article by Christian Springer

There's a saying that one should work hard in the present to reap the rewards later in life. But should one need to work to qualify for Medicaid?

In a week of legal machinations and legal setbacks on the health care front for the Trump Administration, Judge James E. Boasberg's opinion in Gresham v. Azar suggests that the answer is no, at least as the question was posed by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the state of Arkansas. Gresham v. Azar marks the second rebuff of the Trump Administration's attempts to defend work requirements for Medicaid in federal court.

The Gresham case joins the same court's 2018 decision in Stewart v. Azar (Stewart I), which vacated and remanded a similar section 1115 waiver proposal from Kentucky. Notably, the Gresham case was also issued along with Stewart v. Azar II, which vacated and remanded Kentucky's second attempt to impose work requirements in Medicaid. Throughout its opinion, the court extensively discusses the factual parallels between Gresham and Stewart I to support arriving at the same conclusion: that the Secretary's approval of the Arkansas demonstration project proposal was arbitrary and capricious because the Secretary did not adequately determine the proposal's potential impact on Medicaid coverage. Unlike in Stewart I, however, where the Kentucky demonstration project had not yet taken effect, the Arkansas demonstration project has been in effect since June 2018.

Notwithstanding, and given the deficiencies that the court identified in the Secretary's approval of the Arkansas demonstration project, the court's opinion completely vacates and remands the Arkansas project, stating that "the probable disruptions are not so significant as to require deviation room the ordinary rule of vacatur." The two opinions are a significant setback for the Trump Administration, which has made work requirements in Medicaid a lynchpin of its Medicaid policy.


Before discussing the court's analysis in Gresham, it may be helpful to understand some of the key features of the Arkansas Medicaid demonstration/waiver proposal at the heart of the legal battle.

As we have written in the past, section 1115 of the Social Security Act allows states to deviate from the otherwise-applicable Medicaid program rules in order to test demonstration projects that, in the opinion of the Secretary of HHS, "promote the objectives" of the Medicaid program. Going back at least to the Administration of President Gerald Ford, HHS has used 1115 waivers to test various alternative benefit designs, payment arrangements, or coverage policies in lieu of the rigid requirements of the Medicaid program. The Trump Administration's "community engagement" waivers are just another example in the 40+ year history of Medicaid demonstration projects.

Arkansas has traditionally had some of the Medicaid program's most stringent eligibility standards, covering only low-income children, the aged, disabled, and parents with very low incomes. The passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), however, significantly expanded the eligibility standards for Medicaid by "expanding" Medicaid coverage to able-bodied adults below 133% of the federal poverty limit (FPL), but only for states that chose to participate (i.e. "expansion states"). Arkansas was one of the few states in the southern U.S. that elected to expand Medicaid, effective January 1, 2014. For two years, Arkansas Medicaid provided health coverage to more than 278,000 newly eligible individuals.

When the Trump Administration took the reins of government, however, HHS explicitly encouraged states to submit section 1115 waiver proposals to help revamp Medicaid. Arkansas answered the call and submitted three amendments to its Medicaid program (known as "Arkansas Works") that would:

  • Shift income eligibility for the expansion population rom 133% to 100% of the FPL
  • Institute work requirements as a "condition" of continued Medicaid coverage
  • Eliminate the 3-month retroactive coverage period normally applicable to Medicaid entitlement

On March 5, 2018, the Secretary of HHS approved the work requirements and limits to retroactive coverage (but reduced retroactive coverage to 1-month rather than eliminate it). The reduction of eligibility to 100% of FPL was abandoned by Arkansas.1

The work requirements apply to most able-bodied adults in the Medicaid expansion population ages 19-49 and require them to complete 80 hours of employment or other qualifying activities each month. Nonexempt individuals who do not report sufficient qualifying hours for any three months in a plan year are disenrolled from Medicaid for the remainder of that year and not permitted to re-enroll until the following plan year. The work requirements took effect for persons age 30-49 on June 1, 2018, and for persons age 20-29, on January 1, 2019.

Since the amendments took effect, Arkansas Medicaid has disenrolled nearly 17,000 individuals for not reporting their compliance.

Why Arkansas' Demonstration Project Proposal Violated the APA

In August 2018, ten Arkansans sued the Secretary of HHS arguing that the federal government's approval of Arkansas' new requirements violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Constitution. The APA gives jurisdiction to the federal courts to review federal agency actions to determine whether or not those actions are consistent with federal law, in excess of the agency's authority, or applied in an arbitrary or capricious manner. As such, the APA imposes some "guardrails" around the ability of the Executive Branch of government to act when it engages in rulemaking or other actions that affect the rights or obligations of affected parties.

Of the three arguments advanced by the Plaintiffs, Judge Boasberg found it necessary to only consider the first, which argued that HHS did not sufficiently consider whether Arkansas' waiver "would promote the objectives" of Medicaid, including how it would affect the provision of medical assistance to the needy.

In short, Judge Boasberg determined that the Secretary, just like the waiver at issue in Stewart I, "failed to consider adequately the impact of the proposed project on Medicaid coverage." The court noted that the Secretary did not offer his own estimates of coverage loss or grapple with comments submitted to HHS projecting a substantial number of Arkansas residents being disenrolled from Medicaid as a result of the amendments.

Remember what we said above: in order to approve a waiver, the Secretary of HHS must assess that the waiver "promote the objectives" of Medicaid. But in order to determine whether or not a project will "promote" Medicaid's objectives, it would stand to reason that the Secretary would need to take into account the objectives of Medicaid in the first place. And that is where Judge Boasberg found that the approval was lacking.

The court restated its description articulated in the Stewart I case that one of Medicaid's "central objectives" is to "furnish medical assistance to persons who cannot afford it." Given the Secretary's own apparent concession on this point in his Reply Brief, the court criticized the Secretary's approval letter to the Arkansas Medicaid program wherein the Secretary considered three objectives of the Medicaid program, but none of which involved whether the "project would help or hurt Arkansas in funding medical services for the needy."

The court also rejected other arguments advanced by the Secretary:

  • That it was not possible for the Secretary to estimate potential disenrollment rates葉he court stated that regardless of the feasibility of such an estimate, the Secretary failed to respond to commenters that did conduct such estimates.
  • That it was not necessary for the Secretary to estimate potential disenrollment rates because Arkansas did not predict that the project would even cause a coverage loss葉he court stated that regardless of whether the state submits information or not, it is the Secretary's duty to approve only demonstration projects that are "likely to assist in promoting the objectives of Medicaid". Otherwise, HHS could approve a project that would decimate Medicaid coverage without so much as addressing the issue simply because the state did not submit its own estimate of coverage loss.
  • That it was not necessary for the Secretary to offer any explanation of his decision to approve a demonstration project because the governing regulations do not require the Secretary to respond to comments or articulate the basis for his decision葉he court stated that even so, the APA itself requires more when an agency decision is judicially reviewable.
  • That the Arkansas Works amendments promote several other important objectives of Medicaid, including the health of Medicaid-eligible persons葉he court restated its position from Stewart I that the agency's focus on "health", whether warranted or not, does not substitute for considering Medicaid's central concern of covering health costs through the provision of free or low-cost health coverage.
  • That any deficiencies in the administrative record are cured by HHS' subsequent approval of Kentucky's similar project on remand from the Court's decision in Stewart I葉he court states that this argument runs "headlong" into the "fundamental" rules of law prohibiting post hoc rationalizations for agency action and asserted that the agency action here must be supported by what was in the administrative record supporting it.

What happens now?

The government will have an opportunity to appeal, but for now, Stewart I, Stewart II, and Gresham symbolize victories for opponents of the Trump Administration's work requirements. Moreover, the Administration could re-consider the Arkansas and Kentucky waivers in light of these decisions; the court in Gresham noted that its opinion does not completely preclude adoption of work requirements if HHS or the state take another bite at the apple. But the state may find it harder to do so given that the Medicaid expansion in Arkansas actually appears to have reduced expenditures, thus depriving the state of the argument that the expansion has pressed its annual budget and has precipitated the need for the Arkansas Work amendments.


1 But stay tuned for future developments on income eligibility thresholds. We at the Medicaid and the Law blog predict that changes are coming soon in this area.

To view Foley Hoag's Medicaid and the Law blog please click here

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq痴 use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor痴 own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq痴 Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq痴 Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq痴 right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions